8909 Jackrabbit LTD v. Harris County Appraisal District ( 2024 )

Opinion issued October 17, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00592-CV
———————————
8909 JACKRABBIT LTD, Appellant
V.
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee
On Appeal from the 61st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2017-69288
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 6, 2024, appellant, 8909 Jackrabbit Ltd, filed a notice of appeal
from the trial court’s August 28, 2023 order granting summary judgment in favor of
appellee, Harris County Appraisal District. The Court’s record reflects that
appellant’s notice of appeal was filed by Frank Gilchrist, representing that he is the
owner of 8909 Jackrabbit Ltd. Notably, the record does not reflect that Gilchrist is
a licensed attorney.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over an appeal.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. Generally, a notice of appeal of a final judgment must be
filed within thirty days after the entry of judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1.
However, where a party timely files certain post-judgment motions, the deadline to
file a notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the entry of judgment. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). Post-judgment motions generally must be filed within
thirty days after the judgment or other order complained of is signed. See TEX. R.
CIV. P. 329b(a), (g).
The appellate record does not reflect that appellant filed a post-judgment
motion which would have extended the appellate deadlines. Accordingly, in order
to invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over the trial court’s August 28, 2023
final judgment, appellant was required to file a notice of appeal on or before
September 27, 2023. Appellant’s August 6, 2024 notice of appeal was therefore not
timely filed, and the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.
Because appellant’s notice of appeal deadline was not timely filed, on
September 10, 2024, the Court notified appellant in an order that it appeared the
Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because its notice of appeal was not timely
2
filed. The Court further ordered appellant to file a written response within ten days
demonstrating, with citation to law and the record, that the Court had jurisdiction
over the appeal. Despite notice that the appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant
did not adequately respond to the Court’s September 10, 2024 order.
Additionally, a notice of appeal filed by a corporate officer or representative
who is not a licensed attorney is ineffective to perfect an appeal for a corporate
entity. See Walker v. Taub, No. 01-20-00580-CV, 2022 WL 2309133, at *4 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 28, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Premier
Assocs., Inc. v. Louetta Shopping Ctr. Houston, L.P., No. 01-12-00369-CV, 2012
WL 4243802, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 20, 2012, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (“A notice of appeal filed by a corporate representative that is not a licensed
attorney has no effect.”); Simmons, Jannace & Staff, LLP v. Buzbee Law Firm, 324
S.W.3d 833, 833 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (business entities,
as fictional legal persons, cannot represent themselves); Corona v. Pilgrim’s Pride
Corp., 245 S.W.3d 75, 79 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied) (“Texas courts
have consistently held that a non[-]attorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a
corporation.”).
Because appellant’s notice of appeal was filed by Gilchrist, who represented
that he was the owner of 8909 Jackrabbit Ltd., and because there is no indication in
the appellate record that Gilchrist is a licensed attorney, we lack jurisdiction over
3
this appeal. Accordingly, in our September 10, 2024 order, the Court also notified
appellant that it appeared the Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because
appellant’s notice of appeal was filed by corporate representative who is not a
licensed attorney. The Court therefore ordered appellant to file a written response
within ten days demonstrating, with citation to law and the record, that the Court had
jurisdiction over the appeal. Despite notice that the appeal was subject to dismissal,
appellant did not adequately respond to the Court’s September 10, 2024 order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f); see also Walker, 2022 WL 2309133, at *4. All pending
motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Guerra, and Gunn.
4